I also want to refer to Standing Order 1, which clearly states:
In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chair of Committees of the Whole, whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions, so far as they may be applicable to the House.
With Standing Order 1, whenever there is something that is not clearly identified already in our rule books, the Speaker of the House or the chair has the authority to make that call based on common practice in our jurisdiction or similar jurisdictions, similar countries.
In this case, the point Mr. Lamoureux made earlier was that this type of behaviour is unprecedented, that the ruling of the chair be overturned in a manner that it was in a way that is contrary to our rules that are written down.
What I learned from Standing Order 1 is that, as chair, you actually have the ability to overturn the government member's choice to bully the position of the chair because the chair has the ability to look at what is done in other jurisdictions or other—let me get the right words from the Standing Order—yes, it is jurisdictions and parliamentary traditions.
Once again, it's going to the concept of practice and looking at O'Brien and Bosc on the topic of practice, it's described as follows:
Committee practice is the body of unwritten rules governing committee proceedings. It consists of procedures that have developed over time and are viewed as standard operating practice. For example, while there is no Standing Order to that effect, the normal practice is to have government Members sit to the right of a committee Chair and opposition Members sit to the left.
That's an example of where practice is what we look at when there is no written rule.
In this case, where there's no written rule, the chair can make a ruling looking at what common practice or historical practice is in our jurisdiction, or looking at similar jurisdictions. Whether that's this committee or another committee, what's practised in the House of Commons, or what's practised in a similar Westminster model of Parliament perhaps, the chair does have the leeway to do that.
With respect to whether the question be put, I will once again submit to you, Mr. Chair, that sufficient debate has not happened on the amendment itself and so the question should not be put.
